Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[heir]

Even the Revised Standard Mayberry Version that Andy, Barn, and Gome believed?

:chuckle:

 

[heir]

So if a Christian says he believes his NIV contains the pure words of the Lord, you are content and happy?

Why not? With an attitude of taking God at His word/having a teachable spirit there is nothing that the Holy Ghost cannot teach that person (1 Corinthians 2:13 KJV). It would only be a matter of time that that person would see problems with it and search for a reliable "all scripture".

 

[mamatuzzo]

Here is what I know for sure, God doesn't need a perfect printed version of His Word in every tongue to reach the world with the Gospel to get people saved, before or after the KJB. In the scope of the history of man there is only a very small percent of the human race that will ever see that supposed perfect printed word before or after the KJB. So, what good is a perfect printed translation if most of humanity will never hold it in their hands?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Wow! Bob Enyart and Will Duffy have stooped to new lows.
WiKiLiD? Seriously?

Doesn't sound serious to me. Sort of struck my funny bone.

But then again, extreme sleep deprivation can do that to you, make you a bit giddy, which is what happened to me over the last 10 days as Kinney violated the rules to rob us of the time we had hoped for to properly evaluate his posts, research answers, and write and proofread replies.

That's it for me. Putting words in Will Kinney's mouth is even more slimy than trying to tie him to Ruckman. I'm glad they did this. It shows their true colours. Would you buy a used car from these men?

I feel your pain George. I too would have preferred that Will Kinney answer the questions so that we wouldn't have had to try to do that for him.

And you've said that we smeared Kinney with Ruckman's denial that the fetus is a baby. I thought we went out of our way (even though Kinney's rushed and sloppy writing made it sound like he was arguing that abortion is justified, which he wasn't) to point our that Kinney was not like Ruckman regarding abortion.

Now please George, the whole King James Controversy doesn't hinge on us disagreeing on this one point. Can't you review our Ruckman quotes and see if in fact we did not smear Kinney with Ruckman's tolerance of decriminalized abortion?

Thanks! -Bob

 

[Bob Enyart]

Hey, does anyone have thoughts on the observation we made in Round Five of Kinney's careful combination of terms he uses and his tactical avoidance of ever claiming that the KJB is "100% inerrant"? If so, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks, - Bob

It depends on how the errors are judged. Small errors are allowed by God

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

 

[George Affleck]

Like you, you mean? I mean, is everyone who writes in a way you find difficult to understand doing something wrong? Does everyone who writes have a duty to write in such a way that you personally understand first time?

I can only answer - Amen! All complaints about the language used by the KJV translators are made by whiners and complainers.

But how does this square with what you said here?

The KJV is dated. All you KJV lovers can eulogise it as much as you like but it is a proven fact that 90% of English speakers find it difficult to read and understand.

Are you working both sides of the street?

 

[genuineoriginal]

All complaints about the language used by the KJV translators are made by whiners and complainers.

We can also say that KJV Only advocates are whiners and complainers when they complain about the language used in other translations.

 

[Desert Reign]

I can only answer - Amen! All complaints about the language used by the KJV translators are made by whiners and complainers.

So you are at least accepting the validity of their complaints?

But how does this square with what you said here?

Are you working both sides of the street?

No, just both ends. As I have said many times in this debate, the KJV is no different from a lot of translations, some good, some bad. My criticism is against those who claim it to be inerrant.

We can also say that KJV Only advocates are whiners and complainers when they complain about the language used in other translations.

Sure. Except that the only way they complain is on the basis that translation whatever happens to disagree with the KJV. Because they are are not interested in looking at the original Greek or Hebrew text to see which one is objectively more correct. And for this reason most of them (if not all) don't learn Greek or Hebrew. They know that if they do, they will need to drop their cherished claims of inerrancy. Just pure anti-intellectualism. At least when we criticise a translation (KJV or otherwise) we make objective - and therefore constructive - criticisms.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Hey, does anyone have thoughts on the observation we made in Round Five of Kinney's careful combination of terms he uses and his tactical avoidance of ever claiming that the KJB is "100% inerrant"? If so, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks, - Bob



Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

Are we defining inerrant according to an ordinary dictionary (like Webster's) or according to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"? (available in pdf form)

 

[Lon]

God preserves His Word

God preserves His Word

I was reading "The Canon of the Old and New Testament" and ran across this quote:

A single fact shows that the sacred autograph of
Moses had well nigh perished, in the idolatrous reigns
of Manasseh and Anion, but was found, during the
reign of the pious Josiah, among the rubbish of the
temple. It cannot, however, be reasonably supposed,
that there were no other copies of the law scattered
through the nation. It does indeed seem that the
young king had never seen the book, and was igno-
rant of its contents, until it was now read to him ; but
while the autograph of Moses had been misplaced, and
buried among the ruins, many pious men might have
possessed private copies.

Upon this, I was mindful of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. God has indeed preserved His Word. In Him -Lon

 

[Shasta]

Taking God at His word in the KJB does not hinder a saved individual from 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV. It facilitates it!

Your right, that I have the permission to ignore all other translations! It's called liberty! I know the truth and the truth has made me free! PTL! God has not left any of us helpless and at the mercy of religious men with an agenda to manipulate and spoil us (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV, Colossians 2:8 KJV)! We have all scripture that IS given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that we may be throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV) which are the work of the ministry! We can preach the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18-21 KJV), preach the word (2 Timothy 4:2-5 KJV), put on the whole armour of God and stand (Ephesians 6:10-20 KJV). Be grounded and settled (Colossians 1:23-29 KJV). And even make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery (Ephesians 3:1-9 KJV).

Sure you have the freedom to use any translation. I am not at the mercy of the translators either not even those that translated and revised the KJV. This is different from what WK says. He thinks there is one and only one English Bible that is accurate and that is the KJV. Not only is it the most accurate Bible. He believes that it is infallible (the Cambridge edition) and is equivalent to the original text it was translated from.

He sees the translators of the KJV as uniquely inpired to the point he disparages all who do not believe in the infallible perfection of the KJV calling them "Bible Agnostics" In fact he believes the KJV supersedes even the original texts it was based on which he has called "non-existent." For this I have called him a "Translation Idolator" A person who merely of the opinion that the KJV is the best translation does not fall into that category because they understand where what the scriptures really are. They just happen to believe a certain group did a better job of translating them than others.

When Paul said "all scripture was God-breathed" he was not talking about the KJV nor was he prophesying of the coming summit of perfection which would be the Cambridge edition of the KJV. When Paul wrote that he was talking about God's words that were spoken and written by the holy Prophets and Apostles in Greek and Hebrew.

I read the KJV for years and was helped a great deal by it. I still know a lot of it by heart. I have also read the NASB, the HCSB, the ESV, the NET Bible and the Greek text. Mr. Kinny thinks that since the KJV is perfect differences between the Greek text and the KJB do not exist, that they cannot exist. This is why he is driven to such absurd lengths to defend it on his website. If a Bible student sees any discrepancy in the KJV they must offer such explanations as these, suppress the idea altogether or else modify their belief about translations of the Bible.

If you adopt this WK's view then you will be forced to the unenviable position of having to defend every word of the KJV, for if it has mistranslated any verse or word then it is not perfect and the whole hypothesis collapses. If it is inspired and not just a good translation then even archaic language like "turtledoves" or "conversation" cannot be changed since they are part of the divinely inspired text.

I just think this goes too far.

 

[George Affleck]

So you are at least accepting the validity of their complaints?

How is it that you conclude that because I acknowledge that complaints are made that I also acknowledge their validity? You need a lesson in logic.

No, just both ends. As I have said many times in this debate, the KJV is no different from a lot of translations, some good, some bad. My criticism is against those who claim it to be inerrant.

Then why did you make this criticism that is outside of your stated parameters?

The KJV is dated. All you KJV lovers can eulogise it as much as you like but it is a proven fact that 90% of English speakers find it difficult to read and understand.

Is it because you also think that reading comprehension is a valid criticism or not? If so, why did you say this?

I mean, is everyone who writes in a way you find difficult to understand doing something wrong? Does everyone who writes have a duty to write in such a way that you personally understand first time?

You can't have it both ways because I won't let you. If your only criticism is against inerrancy then don't talk about readability. If readability is something you think is worth criticizing, then don't say your only criticism is against inerrancy.

 

[Desert Reign]

You can't have it both ways because I won't let you. If your only criticism is against inerrancy then don't talk about readability. If readability is something you think is worth criticizing, then don't say your only criticism is against inerrancy.

Look chum, I can say what I like. It's a free country. Get over it. I wasn't talking to you when I wrote that. What I previously said was perfectly comprehensible in its proper context and needs no further justification. You sound jealous that you lost the debate and are just out to save face.

 

[brandplucked]

Shasta's Santa Claus "bible"

Shasta's Santa Claus "bible"

He sees the translators of the KJV as uniquely inpired to the point he disparages all who do not believe in the infallible perfection of the KJV calling them "Bible Agnostics" In fact he believes the KJV supersedes even the original texts it was based on which he has called "non-existent." For this I have called him a "Translation Idolator" A person who merely of the opinion that the KJV is the best translation does not fall into that category because they understand where what the scriptures really are. They just happen to believe a certain group did a better job of translating them than others.

When Paul said "all scripture was God-breathed" he was not talking about the KJV nor was he prophesying of the coming summit of perfection which would be the Cambridge edition of the KJV. When Paul wrote that he was talking about God's words that were spoken and written by the holy Prophets and Apostles in Greek and Hebrew.

Shasta. You are still promoting The Santa Claus "bible". You cannot show us a copy or even tell us what is this alluded to "God's words that were spoken and written by the holy Prophets and Apostles in Greek and Hebrew."

You don't have them. You can't tell us or show us what they were, and yet you profess great faith in believing these unseen, unknown and unwritten "Greek and Hebrew words spoken by God".

You don't have a copy of them and you know you don't. Yet you pretend you are a Bible believer. You believer selected parts of various versions out there, but you do not believe all of any of them.

That is just a fact. Now, if you think I am wrong, then all you have to do is SHOW US A COPY of your complete and inerrant Bible. But you won't and never will.

 

[Bob Enyart]

I had the same thought about WiKiLiD.

I would love for brandplucked or the Moderators of the debate to provide a statement from brandplucked...

even stating that he can neither confirm nor deny that those were his words.

Well G.O., that's probably the only option open to him, considering the state that he was in on Tuesday night.

- Bob

 

[brandplucked]

confirm what words?

confirm what words?

Quote:
Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
I had the same thought about WiKiLiD.

I would love for brandplucked or the Moderators of the debate to provide a statement from brandplucked...

even stating that he can neither confirm nor deny that those were his words.

Well G.O., that's probably the only option open to him, considering the state that he was in on Tuesday night.

- Bob

Hi guys. Confirm or deny what words? I did not see the post. What exactly is it I am supposed to either confirm or deny?

Thanks.

 

[mamatuzzo]

Someone stating they have a perfect translation of God's Word does not make it so, and since most of Humanity will never hold this version in their hand what good is it? Are we in America a privileged lot? Be thankful for all we have access to.

 

[Lon]

KJ Translators themselves give the variants they saw in margins

KJ Translators themselves give the variants they saw in margins

It is interesting to note, that the KJV translators did much as current day translations do by giving variants in side margins as well as disclosing where they weren't certain:

REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN,
WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

 

[brandplucked]

Violated the Rules????

Violated the Rules????

Kinney violated the rules to rob us of the time we had hoped for to properly evaluate his posts, research answers, and write and proofread replies.

Bob, I do not see at all where I supposedly "violated the rules". The questions you kept asking again and again, I had already answered. You just kept asking them again or rephrasing the same things.

I still maintain that all you showed us are mere printing errors. There are about 20 different Publishing houses that print King James Bibles.

Over the years there have been some printing errors or some who take it upon themselves to make "changes" according to their own understanding. They can do this because there is NO copyright on the KJB outside of England.

One printer I had a guy tell me about was where some company decided to change Hebrews 10:23 from "faith" to "hope".

But that was not what is in the traditional King James Bibles.

Here are the Rules that were sent to me at the beginning of the debate. I kept a copy of them. I do not see where I violated any of these rules that were sent to me.

Answering the same questions over and over again was not part of the Rules.

And I asked you several questions that you totally ignored.

This is a copy of The Rules that was sent to me before the debate began.


KJO Debate Guidelines

Honor: Both sides commit to honor God through their demeanor, to “argue hard and love much.”

Clarity: Both sides will attempt to achieve clarity and avoid obfuscation.

Responsiveness: Each side will make an effort to be responsive to the other, to interact, and to answer relevant questions forthrightly, which also ensures that the participants actually debate one another and not simply post material written for other purposes, especially if that material is not specifically responsive.


KJO Debate Rules

Question Numbering: To help focus the opponent on the topic(s) of a particular post, and to enable readers to follow the debate more easily, participants will sequentially number their questions using TOL’s Battle Royale convention of initials, a Q for question, an A for answer, and then the question number. Bob Enyart and Will Duffy will identify their questions with BWQ1, BWQ2; Will Kinney will identify his questions with WKQ1, WKQ2, etc. To reply, mark any answer with BWA-WKQ1 (Bob & Will answer Will Kinney’s first question), WKA-BWQ3 (Will Kinney answer’s Bob & Will’s third question), etc. Prior to presenting the answer, first quote in full the question that was asked, and then present one's answer. After reading a post, without such a convention, it may be unclear to the audience and even to the opponent exactly what is being asked. So this also saves participants time in evaluating an opponent’s post. And it discourages unresponsive replies that focus for example on rhetorical questions or incidental details while ignoring the primary challenges. Of course there can be valid reasons why an opponent may refuse to answer a given question.

Posting: The debate will consist of five rounds of a maximum of 6,000 words per post. Both first round posts will appear online simultaneously at noon on November 2nd. For each of the next four rounds, the proponent, Will Kinney, must post within 48 hours of the previous post, and the opponents, Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, must post within 48 hours of Will Kinney’s post. The official Battle Royale XIV clock will be set by Knight and will show the countdown on TOL. Graphics are permitted but links will not be permitted except at the end of each side’s final post.

 

[George Affleck]

Look chum, I can say what I like. It's a free country. Get over it. I wasn't talking to you when I wrote that. What I previously said was perfectly comprehensible in its proper context and needs no further justification. You sound jealous that you lost the debate and are just out to save face.

OK